Please explain how an unvirile male is going to produce offspring?
Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist about your obsession with female sexuality threatening mankind?
What is the difference between
- “male virility is obviously the deciding factor”
and - “how an un-virile male is going to produce offspring”.
Or are you THAT fucking stupid?
Here are some points to consider.
a) You made a claim about something Darwin said. I called Bullshit. He did not say that, because he was not a moron. Now run along and support your claim by quoting Darwin or fuck off.
b) Consider this. Males can be very “virile” and produce no off spring at all. I’d be willing to bet that the fruits of your own virility are regularly soaked up by toilet paper and flushed down the toilet - probably more than most.
c) Consider the phrase “it take two to tango”. You can have a bathfull of spunk - but without an egg and a womb to gestate a foetus its just useless protein.
d) there are several factors, the least of which is male virility. Female choice; female health; the security of the gestational period and security of the child’s life until it reaches adulthood and can reproduce itself.
e) oh yeah - and one sperm has to work.
What does virility mean you dome-headed freak?
Man is the active partner, he must be aroused to achieve impregnation. It’s all down to sexual mechanics, as it is with every other species. The more virile male will sire more offspring again as it is with every other species and he will be able to protect his brood. The more virile male will also attract more females (those females will likely be healthier too).
Basic fact about sex:
Male: driven to spread his seed.
Female: sperm sampler…diversifying to preserve at least one due to changing environmental circumstances.
Female promiscuity is longer in cycles-
6-8 years in humans…or the length of time a child needs to reach the age of self-sufficiency.
This is why moist divorces usually occur 4-8 years after marriage.
In chimpanzees the beta male is allowed to copulate with the female in secret, away from the view of the dominant male.
In human females inconspicuous ovulation cycles allows the female to pick and choose who has the better chance of fertilizing her…and why rape is so devastating to a female.
As noted elsewhere, Evolutionary Psychologists also explain the necessity of female orgasm…and conclude that it is to increase the probability of being fertilized by a desirable male.
The entrance to her fallopian tubes gesticulating, during orgasm, dips them into the freshly inserted sperm, giving them a boost - increasing the probability of them fertilizing her.
Controlling a female’s standards for evaluating fitness determines what type of male she will find socially attractive, even if her body has evolved to automatically respond to a male’s natural fitness markers.
This creates in her the mind/body dissonance many females consider their “complexity”…their “feminine mystique”.
In other species male compete and females submit to the victor.
Diversification is an innate motive of primate females…explaining why they always support diversity and non-paternalistic social systems. that take away this power.
He who controls a female’s standards controls the destiny of a culture/civilization.
Inferior males always readily adapt to their judgements…as is evident by the reaction of ILP males, as this increases the possibility of being selected - virtue signaling.
Beta-males, as in chimpanzee troops, always become aids, or allies to females, often babysitting the offspring she’s had with the alpha,…always around waiting for her to give them an opportunity to copulate. She often acquiesces to keep him around, usually in her conflicts with other in-group females.
We see how females use sex to control males, especially low status males.
In Modern human societies the alpha-male role is taken by the institution, making all biological males beta-males.
Try and go through each point I made before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
So where does Darwin say what you said he did?
I’ll not hold my breath
There are about 6000 mammals on earth and this assessment only applies to some of them.
Your reflections do not even apply to all human societies, let alone all primates, or all living things.
Mammals are far from the most populous on earth and represent on a tiny proportion of living things.
There are more species of beetles in an acre of rain forest than mammals the world over.
The thread is supposedly about “Darwinistic Selection” WETF that is, we assume it’s supposed to mean “natural selection”. Such a principle applies to all life, not just your tiny anthropomorphic corner of the world
Yes…it applies to primates…some of them.
And different cultures do try to control it using different methods.
And?
Did I quote Darwin?
No that is precisely the point. You’ve not done any reading on the matter, obviously.
What you seemed to have collected in a bunch of nonsense which you think characterises evolutionary theory but in effect you are simply ignorant of it.
I can only imagine that you gleaned your information from the back of a Kellogg’s cereal packet
What you laughingly said was ;
Which I showed to be bullshit.
Evolution is a weakening of the organism. After the initial Cambrian explosion it’s all downhill. The brain tries to compensate for what the body loses through mutation and genetic drift. The stronger organisms remain the major contributors to the propogation of the species.
=D>
Adaptability is the key, not intelligence, not strength, not virility…Adaptability to fluctuating circumstances and environmental conditions.
What in one environment is an advantage might be a disadvantage or neutral in another environment.
But obtuse, inflexible, rigid, psyche’s, lacking adaptability, will never comprehend.
Mind does not cause evolution, mind is the consequence of evolution.
Masculine traits may be an advantage in adverse natural environments but in manmade artificially created and maintain environments of superfluity, and relative safety, it is considered ‘toxic’ resulting in feminization as beta-males attempt to signal their adaptability to systemic norms.
Adaptability… is that why hominids in the north lost their body hair when all the other mammals retained a thick coat to keep them warm? We now need to burn nature to survive, other animals don’t need fires to stay alive. We have to take the body fur of other animals and put it over our own. Is that why our eyesight is poorer than other animals? Why we need to cook our food? Why our ancestors were quicker, stronger and had more stamina? Adaptability is a salve for the human ego and a delusion caused by Abrahamic fantasies.
Which is another aspect of atrophy/entropy.
I’m not going to give you lessons in anthropology, man-child.
Read a fuckin’ book.
Hair, man-child, serves other purposes, not only preserving body heat. It also serves as a moisture preserver, trapping sweat that cools the body.
See how the Arabs wear long garments covering everything, when they live in extremely hot climates?
Eskimos are practically hairless…
Adaptation, man-child can be genetic or memetic…
What is euphemistically referred to as ‘evolution’ is nothing more than stories made up by Europeans to justify their pompous self-image and violence against nature. As I’ve already explained to you nature can be upended in an instant, casting out billions of years of so called ‘evolution’ in favor of something completely the opposite, a total inversion. Mammals never adapted, the dinosaurs were removed in a freak event that lasted less than a nano-second in evolutionary time. There are loads of stories concerning why humans lost their fur, but it all adds up to the same thing, a physical weakening of the organism, an attrition of the genes… LESS adaptability in northern climates, necessitating artificial means of maintaining body temperature.
It’s the same with race and the vitamin D ‘hypothesis’. A load of bullshit designed to make everyone feel better, as though everyone belongs somewhere and for a reason, as though skin color isn’t a marker to something deeper. Why do primates have different skin colors under their fur? Ha!
Your avatar image is well chose.
You are exactly the dickhead that you appear.
Have you heard of self contradiction?
This is priceless
=D>
The avatar is about how he’s, finally, seen himself: Frederick Chilton, pompous buffoon, and inferior psychologist.
Creationism he wishes…no evolution.